Bourdieu and Social Movements

Bourdieu and Social Movements:Considering Identity Movementsin Terms of Field, Capital and Habitus

HANNA-MARI HUSUDepartment of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland

ABSTRACT This article examines the explanatory capacity of Pierre Bourdieu’s work in relation tosocial movements and, in particular, identity movements. It aims to provide a theoretical frameworkdrawing on Bourdieu’s central concepts of field, capital and habitus. These concepts are viewed asproviding a theoretical toolkit that can be applied to convincingly explain aspects of socialmovements that social movement theories, such as political process theory, resource mobilizationtheory and framing, acknowledge, but are not able to explain within a single theoretical framework.Identity movements are approached here in a way that relates them to the position agents/movementsoccupy in social spaces, resources and cultural competence. This enables us to consider identitymovements from a new perspective that explains, for instance, the interrelatedness of class andidentity movements.

KEY WORDS: Bourdieu, social movements, identity movements, field, capital, habitus

The article investigates the explanatory capacity of Pierre Bourdieu’s work in relation to

identity movements. It aims to construct a theoretical approach to social movements that

draws upon Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital and habitus. The value of Bourdieu’s

work with regard to social movement research lies in ‘its ability to draw together ideas and

insights that have already been explored by others’ (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 5).

Bourdieu was interested in many of the aspects significant to social movement research

(the relationship between external context and agents, relations and networks, resources

and subjective meanings of agents) and strove to develop a theoretical framework that

would enable him to grasp all of these in a systematic way. Although Bourdieu never dealt

with social movements comprehensively in his writings, his work can be seen as

synthesizing different social movement approaches, such as political process theory

(Eisinger, 1973; Tilly, 1978, 1995; Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999), resource mobilization

theory (Lipsky, 1968; Oberschall, 1973; Gamson, 1975; Tilly, 1975; Tilly et al., 1975;

McCarthy & Zald, 1977) and framing (Gamson et al., 1982; Snow et al., 1986; Snow &

Benford, 1988, 1992), which remain well established in social movement theory.

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Correspondence Address: Hanna-Mari Husu, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of

Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla FI-40014, Finland. Email: [email protected]

Social Movement Studies, 2013

Vol. 12, No. 3, 264–279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.704174

Bourdieu provides fertile ground for social movement research, as illustrated by several

works such as Horton (2003); Haluza-DeLay (2008) on the concept of habitus in the

environmental movement; Erickson Nepstad and Bob (2006) on capital and leadership in

movements; and Crossley (1999a, 1999b) on mental health movements, as well as works

by Eder (1993), Bloemraad (2001) and Tugal (2009). Other authors draw on Bourdieu to

construct a synthesis between different social movement theories and/or to transcend

dualisms in movement research, such as Crossley (2002, 2003), Goldberg (2003),

Emirbayer and Goldberg (2005) and Emirbayer and Johnson (2008) on organizations. This

article develops these efforts further by applying the concepts of field, capital and habitus

in the context of identity movements. While Bourdieu’s power-related concepts provide

insights into the analysis of single identity movement organization (Walter, 1990; Husu,

2010), systematic attempts to use his main concepts relationally can offer a new

perspective on identity movement research.

The Bourdieusian framework explains the interrelatedness of the social position,

resources and cultural competence behind the practices of identity movements, making it

possible to overcome dualisms between structural and constructionist, objective and

subjective, and material and cultural accounts of identity movement research. This

approach allows us to take into account several aspects within a comprehensive

framework, such as the possibilities and preconditions for movement action in different

social spaces, the characteristics of movements, the role of resources and representations,

cognitive skills and competence, and so on. As identity movements (excluding here

populist and reactive identity movements) are often connected to new social movements

and middle-class activism (Offe, 1985; Eder, 1993), Bourdieu can also be drawn on to

explain the importance of class with respect to identity movements.

The identity movement concept refers to social movements in which identity,

with respect to gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., becomes a political point of departure

(see Woodward, 1997, p. 24). Identity movements can vary significantly, for example, in

their goals and strategies (sameness or difference), modes of presentation and organizing

action, involving both instrumental and expressive logic of action (see Bernstein, 1997;

Goldberg, 2003). For instance, they may aspire to new political rights and equality in law

or to resist cultural devaluation through recognition claims that take place through

symbolic struggles. It is suggested that Bourdieu’s field, capital and habitus toolkit

provides the possibility to also consider the instrumental and expressive aspects of

different movements.

The first two sections of this article relate to Bourdieu’s concept of field in political

process theory and suggest different ways of understanding the field concept in terms of

social movements. The next section focuses on the position-taking and strategies of

identity movement agents, and proceeds then to deal with cultural competence in framing

the political aspects of identity. The final section aims to explore symbolic struggles in

terms of specific stakes of struggles and the role of different species of capital used by

identity movements.

The Relationship Between External Context and the Emergence of Movements

Political process theory argues that transformations in external structures and processes

affect the emergence of social movements, their action and possible outcome by creating

opportunities or obstacles for movement activity. These may refer to different factors such

Bourdieu and Social Movements 265

as resource availability, bureaucratic constraints, legislation possibilities, the degree of

social control in society or a certain field, elites, opponents, pre-existing organizations in a

field, organizations competing for the same resources, media attention and so on (see

McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Opportunities that facilitate movement mobilization bring about

transformations in the relations between agents or institutions.1

Bourdieu highlights the primacy of social relations in his sociology. The concept of field

implies ‘a set of objective, historical relations between positions’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant,

1992, p. 16). Fields (i.e. social spaces) can be viewed as structures of differences between

individuals, groups and institutions, while the positions of the agents are based on the

distribution and possession of capital. The most commonly used are economic capital

(money and ownership.) and cultural capital that can be incorporated into dispositions

(taste and lifestyle, for example), objectified (cultural goods own by an agent), or

institutional (for instance, educational qualifications).

Bourdieu’s concept of field is consistent with the idea of political process theory that

wider societal processes can transform the established structures of power. These wider,

external societal processes, such as demographic changes (urbanization, capitalization,

increase in numbers of certain age groups, growth in education and wealth in society, entry

of women into the labour markets, technological breakthroughs, etc.), have effects on the

structure of the field. Certain types of transformation (such as women’s increased higher

education or their entry into labour markets, thus increasing the cultural and economic

capital of women) can shift the balance of power in a field. As a result, agents may become

better resourced to negotiate new arrangements. Similarly, political process theory

understands that these types of processes can cause shifts in political structures, either by

undermining the basis of the political system or by enhancing the strategic position of the

challenger (McAdam, 1999).

Although political process theorists point out that structural openings and grievances

need to be interpreted by agents (Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999), they do not explain the

different aspects of agency.2 The problem is that the openings in the political structure

themselves explain social movements. For Bourdieu, it is the relationship between

structural openings and the position occupied by agents (based on the possession of

capital) and the habitus and trajectory of agents that explain the emergence and

characteristics of and possibilities for social movements. Bourdieu’s concepts can reveal

how the interpretation of structural openings is preconditioned depending on the structural

position of agents within the field.

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus explains the interpretation process particularly well.

Habitus stresses that the objective structures, such as institutions, social relations and

resources, become embodied and internalized in the cognitive structure of agents, and that

this is further realized in practice. Habitus is ‘an endless capacity to engender products—

thoughts—perceptions—expressions—actions—whose limits are set by the historically

and socially situated conditions of its production’ (Bourdieu, 1977, pp. 72, 95). Habitus

explains how the practices and representations of agents are dependent on their structural

position. This is based on Bourdieu’s belief that the cognitive structures of agents tend to

reflect the structural position of agents in social space, or fields. Agents adapt dispositions

that are ‘the internalization of an objectively selected system of signs, indices, sanctions,

which are nothing but the materialization, within objects, words or conducts, of a

particular kind of objective structure’ (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 133).

266 H.-M. Husu

The field and habitus cannot be understood separately. The field can be understood

as a ‘space of possibles’ linked to chances of access, aspirations and expectations, which

are perceived and appreciated by the habitus (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 64). This may mean

the ‘sense of social direction which orients agents’ towards a specific strategy

(Bourdieu, 1993, p. 64), based on the practical information concerning, for instance, when

and in what way to approach state agencies or journalists who may be willing to support

the movement, or what type of campaign should be organized and who are its targets. This

implies that activists possess certain dispositions and skills that affect their ability to

protest due to their socialization and social background.

Relating Movements to Fields

The concept of field enables us to consider the ways in which identity movements are

related to their environment, as well as the types of relationships they have with each other

and other agents, groups and institutions, and thus to further clarify the problematic

aspects of political process theory. The field should not be understood in a rigid, static

way, but rather as an analytical tool that can give insight into different types of situations

(see Martin, 2003). Thus, there can be different ways to conceptualize social movements

within the field concept, each of which has its benefits and shortcomings.3

First, Crossley (2002, pp. 178–183) argues that movements themselves act in different

fields depending on their area of expertise. In this sense, if a civil rights organization

specializes in judicial issues, it operates in the judicial field. If the organization is a

media watchdog group, its effects occur in the media field. The benefit of this approach

is that it highlights the importance of the different social spaces in which social

movements operate. With the exception of some authors who have highlighted the role

of cultural or discursive opportunity structures (Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Koopmans &

Statham, 1999), political process theory has paid much attention to political and

institutional structures, neglecting other social and cultural spaces in which struggles

take place (Jasper, 1997, pp. 34–39; Goodwin & Jasper, 2003). The idea of different

fields (e.g. economic, judicial, journalistic and intellectual) enables us to consider

openings and transformations not only in political structures (although the political field

may be the dominant field as its institutions, legislation, alliances, etc., can significantly

influence other fields), but also in other types of social spaces, which may be just as

important to social movements.

Bloemraad (2001, p. 277) draws attention to relational aspects between fields and

habitus, arguing that different social spaces have different effects on the collective action

of a movement. Each field can be understood to have its own logic:

Specific fields will often have their own forms of social control, their own structures

of opportunity and their specific types of resource, and thus the possibility of

movement formation, development and success within them may be quite specific to

them [ . . . ] a campaign which is eminently newsworthy in the media field may be

quite hopeless from a political or legal point of view, and vice versa. (Crossley,

2002, p. 180)

This indicates that each field has different constrains and logics. Movements ‘are required

to play a different game in each of these fields’ (Crossley, 2002, p. 180).


For instance, the economic field may be important to identity movements, as the

movements may aim to take advantage of the economic logic of profit-making.

The movements may aspire to find supporters and sponsors from businesses that are

willing to support, for example gay and lesbian visibility, because these businesses view it

as a marketing strategy. In addition, Bourdieu (2005, p. 41) believes that the journalistic

field is increasingly influential. Having an identity movement or its concerns increasingly

represented in a positive and supportive manner in the newspapers or the media can be

crucial to the success of the movement because these disseminate ‘representations and

definitions of the social world’ and ‘shape and mold public opinion’ (see Goldberg, 2003,

pp. 753, 754). Thus, they can be seen ‘as producers of the meaning and value’ of the

movement’s efforts, and as defining the movement’s discourse as being worthy of

discussion (cf. Bourdieu, 1993, p. 35; Johnson, 1993, p. 11). However, if a lesbian, gay,

bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement aims to appeal to certain businesses in order

to find sponsors for its activities and campaigns, it can hardly be understood as belonging

to the economic field because its reason for existence is not related to economic

profit-making. The movement may (temporarily) use the logic of another field to further its

aspirations, but its real goals are elsewhere, such as struggling for legitimate valuation of

sexual identity, which may also take place in other fields such as the media. In this sense,

movements traverse different fields without being fully determined by the logic of the

specific field within which they operate.

If it is possible to consider social movements as phenomena with their own laws of

functioning, then the next approach is to think of movements themselves as fields (see

Bourdieu, 1993, p. 37, 2005, p. 33; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 2). Bourdieu (1993,

2005) refers to the field of cultural production (including artistic, journalistic, and

scientific fields, and so on). Within these fields, the cultural capital possessed tends to

determine the specific logic of the field. However, Bourdieu understands cultural capital as

‘dominated capital’ with respect to economic capital and the field of power (‘second

principle of hierarchy’ vs. ‘dominant principle of hierarchy’), thus making cultural

producers a ‘dominated fraction of the dominant class’ (see Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992,

pp. 104–105; Bourdieu, 1993, pp. 37–39). Social movements in the public sphere may be

relatively autonomous, but have less power than the state or political and bureaucratic

fields.4

For Bourdieu, fields are arenas of ongoing struggle in which each agent aims to either

improve or conserve his or her own position. The social world is ‘the product and the stake

of cognitive and political symbolic struggles over knowledge and recognition’ (Bourdieu,

2000, p. 187). Identity movements pursue a symbolic struggle in which they compete to

impose ‘as legitimate the principles of construction of social reality’ that are most

favourable to their own social being (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 187). This takes place through

establishing new classifications, definitions and names ‘that construct social reality as

much as they express it, are the stake par excellence of political struggle’ (Bourdieu, 1989,

pp. 21–22). In other words, identity movements can be understood as cultural meaning

producers that create values and new points of view in opposition to imposed modes of

thought that marginalize and devalue certain individuals and groups.5

All agents and mediators ‘that play one role or another’ in the agenda of an identity

movement should be taken into account in the definition of the field (cf. Emirbayer &

Johnson, 2008, p. 2; see Bourdieu, 1993, pp. 34–35). This includes all agents and

institutions that the movement manages to appeal to, i.e. manages to produce an effect on,

268 H.-M. Husu

or vice versa, that is, those agents and institutions that the movement needs to take into

account in its practices and strategies. This may include, for instance, state agents,

institutions and counter-movements (such as anti-abortion, anti-gay, right-wing and

religious right movements whose reason for existence is to oppose the goals and values of

the identity movement in question). In some cases, movements have actual and direct links

to elected officials, state agencies, political parties and so on (see Bernstein, 1997, p. 539).

In Bourdieu’s sense, social capital means resources and networks ‘of more or less

institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992, p. 119; see also Diani, 1997, pp. 130, 133). Social capital and networks

may further increase the influence of the movements, as agents create new linkages

(Diani, 1997). Movements may also appeal to journalists and lay people who are willing to

reconsider their attitudes towards gender, ‘race’ or sexual orientation. This means that

the entire set of agents needs to be taken into account. The problem with this approach

lies in the difficulty in setting boundaries for the field (the field ceases to exist when its

effects are no longer evident), which can only be approached through empirical

investigation (see Bourdieu, 1996a, p. 132).

For something to be understood as a field requires that its agents are interpersonally

related or orientated towards each other or that they share the same goal (Martin, 2003,

p. 29). Fligstein (2001, p. 108) notes that it is relevant to speak of a field when agents

‘frame their action vis-a-vis one another’. Bourdieu, however, warns about reducing

these types of relationships between different agents to mere interaction or influence

(see Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 9). The concept of

field always entails that ‘a set of agents and institutions functions as a field’ when they

‘produce effects upon one another’ (Bourdieu, 1996a, p. 132). Agents must be ‘linked by

objective relations such that the structure of these (material and symbolic) relations has

effects within each of them’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 100–101). Thus, it needs to

be asked what it is in the structural effects and relations that makes this type of influence

possible in the first place.

If a movement agenda appeals to journalists, for example, it is likely that it is because of

homologies and similarities with structural positions and relations between these agents.

Bourdieu refers to ‘sets of agents who occupy similar positions and who, being placed in

similar conditions and subjected to similar conditionings, have every likelihood of having

similar dispositions and interests and therefore of producing similar practices and adopting

similar stances’ (Bourdieu, 1985, p. 725). Therefore, it needs to be considered what these

agents have in common with regard to social positions, volume and composition of capital,

habitus and social trajectory. For instance, Bourdieu (1993, pp. 74–111) draws attention to

the homological positions between the producers of cultural products and their receivers

(clients and readers) in artistic and journalistic fields. It can be suggested that these types

of homologies between different agents also exist for identity movements in the field of

cultural production.

Position and Position-Taking as Explaining the Characteristics and Interests of

Movements

Bourdieu’s idea of the construction of social space (field positions) and position-taking

provides insights into social movement research. For Bourdieu (1989, p. 17), the positions

of different agents in the overall social space can be grasped when, first, the entire volume


of the capital is taken into account (the sum of capital) and, second, when the structure of

the capital is taken into account (the composition of different species of capital). It is

then possible to construct a social space in which movements are located in terms of

their mutual differences. The closer the agents are to each other in a space, the more

common properties they have (1989, p. 16). Bourdieu stresses that ‘the concept of positions

is methodologically inseparable from the field of stances or position-takings, i.e. the

structured systems of practices of agents’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 105). Position-

taking reflects the possible choices that are open to the social agents (Bourdieu, 1993,

p. 177). It refers to stances such as practices and expressions (for instance, style of

argumentation and abstraction, campaigns, projects and representations of social

movements) that tend to be consistent with their actual position in a field (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992, p. 105; Bourdieu, 1996b, p. 231; see also Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Rather than approaching movement activities as (conscious) strategies, representations

or performativity, it is possible to regard them as position-takings. The Bourdieusian

approach enables us to link the position-takings of movements to positions occupied in a

field. This provides explanatory capacity not only in terms of the characteristics of specific

movements and how these characteristics are based on various forms and amounts of

capital, but also how to overcome the dualism between structural and constructionist

accounts in social movement research. Attention should be given to positions occupied in

a field that are based on the agents’ access to resources/capital, as well as the habitus and

trajectories of the movement participants, such as age, social background and how they

came to be members of the movement.

The Bourdieusian framework thus explains the different types of stances and strategies

of different movements in terms of differences in the extent and structure of the capital

they possess. Members of the feminist movement (and its different branches) and LGBT

movement, for example, may possess more capital (cultural or economic) than ethnic

identity groups and so on. Their position-taking may have more influence in fields, as they

are able to mobilize more capital, and therefore have more possibilities to promote their

cause and forge important alliances in fields such as the media.6

For example, civil rights movement activists were often recruited from churches

(Morris, 1984), whereas those activists who highlighted difference and supported

separation, especially organizations such as the Nation of Islam (NOI) (the biggest and

most radical organization of African Americans in the late 1950s), were typically from

ghetto areas, often former convicts and relatively young of age (Lincoln, 1994). In general,

agents aspire to differentiate themselves from other agents so that they exist in fields only

by virtue of difference (Bourdieu, 2005, pp. 39–40). Different movement organizations

‘differentiate themselves on the basis of the stances they assume in respect to strategy,

goals, and identity’ (Emirbayer & Jonhson, 2008, p. 14).7 The NOI differentiated itself

in its position-takings from the civil rights movement by accusing ‘moderate leaders’

of serving the interest of whites, whereas the civil rights leaders understood the populism

and hate-rhetoric of the NOI as a consequence of societal and economic defects

(Lincoln, 1994, pp. 130–159). When the NOI gained popularity among African

Americans, the white press adopted a more positive attitude towards the civil rights

movement (Ogbar, 2004, p. 42). This indicates that position-taking and symbolic struggles

have real consequences on movements’ efforts because they create opportunities for

outside influence, such as the ability to form important alliances, or vice versa

(see Goldberg, 2003).

270 H.-M. Husu

Position-takings become, without conscious calculation, adjusted to the actual

possibilities agents have. The position-taking and strategy of the civil rights movement

to emphasize sameness (rather than difference) may have come about as a result of

increased possession of certain resources and dispositions among its members which, if

racial discrimination were to be abolished, may have extended certain privileges to those

members. Unlike the activist movements in the ghettos, they were not completely

excluded from middle-class ideals. The interests and position-taking of the NOI were

aimed at complete separation from white society because the lack of resources and

dispositions of its members guaranteed their exclusion from American society in any case.

Thus, position-takings are determined by the structure of the field ‘through the

intermediary of the constraints and interests associated with a given position’

(Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 184). Different agents, groups and movements have different

opportunities to carry out their strategies and goals, and moreover, they also have their

own specific interests. The examination of position-taking reveals how these interests are

not conscious and calculated goals, but historical, structured and position-dependent.

Resource mobilization theory, which tends to resonate with rational choice theory, has

paid much attention to the concept of interest in social movement studies. The theory

emerged in the 1970s as a response to the collective behaviour and crowd theories of the

1950s and 1960s (Blumer, 1951; Smelser, 1962; Turner & Killian, 1987), which

emphasized disturbances or strains in everyday social routines resulting in spontaneous,

irrational and emotional collective action by the public. Resource mobilization theory,

instead, highlights the rationality of agents (often in terms of cost and rewards), strategy

(towards defined specific goals), institutionalized practices and resource availability

behind (successful) mobilization (see Jenkins, 1983; Cohen, 1985). In other words, the

theory emphasizes that social movements have clearly defined interests and goals that are

then rationally and strategically pursued. Although Bourdieu (1992a, p. 209) notes that all

practices are ‘oriented towards the maximization of material and symbolic profit’, for him,

in most cases interest is not purposive, instrumental, intentional or conscious action

towards calculated goals, but rather it is linked to a sense of game and habitus, which tend

to adjust to the necessities and probabilities inscribed in the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant,

1992, pp. 25, 125).

Both Bourdieu and resource mobilization theory highlight the importance of resource

availability for successful action. For Bourdieu, the concept of capital refers to usable

economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources and powers, i.e. capital. Some resource

mobilization theorists acknowledge capital as a more nuanced approach to resources,

while also pointing out that resources vary in form and usability (Edwards & McCarthy,

2007, p. 117). Material, cultural, human, moral, technological and time-related resources

are considered necessary for the formation and impact of social movements (see Edwards

& McCarthy, 2007). Both Bourdieu and resource mobilization theory share the central

idea that resources can be converted to other resources—money enables a social

movement organization to pursue a range of activities, such as education and campaigns,

and to buy material resources, such as office space and technology. However, whereas

resource mobilization theory states that resources have a relatively direct effect on

outcomes, Bourdieu views capital as functioning more as a mediator. The Bourdieusian

framework explains how the success of movements depends not only on the possession

of external and internal resources, but also on the ways in which external and internal

resources are mobilized in the position-takings of the movements.


Furthermore, Bourdieu stresses that the effects of possessing capital can be embodied in

the forms of disposition of agents (see Crossley, 2002, p. 174). Although, resource

mobilization theory often counts knowledge, habits and skills as resources (see Edwards &

McCarthy, 2007, p. 126), without explanation of the specific mechanisms behind these

factors (such as Bourdieu’s field, capital and habitus) this theorization falls short. When

capital is understood as embodied, the question of cultural background and class position

can be taken into account in a way that acknowledges the importance of the cognitive

ability of movement participants (see also Eder, 1993; Crossley, 2002).

Cultural Competence and Understanding of Identity

New social movements are often associated with middle-class participation and the rise of

the ‘New Class’ due to growth in professional, managerial, administrative and technical

occupations (Gouldner, 1979; Goldthorphe, 1982; Rootes, 1995). Rootes (1995) argues

that the growth of higher education and new professionals has had significant political

implications in terms of new politics and mobilization (see also Inglehart, 1977;

Della Porta & Diani, 2006, pp. 55–62). Bourdieu (1986, p. 426) points out that in political

debates, for example concerning women’s liberation and environmental protection,

variations in educational capital are especially important. Bourdieu links social position

and possession of capital to the cognitive aspects of agents, providing mechanisms through

which it can be explained how a middle-class position affects cognitive skills and, thus,

constructive processes.

Taking into account the cognitive and social psychological aspects of agents raises the

question of how certain societal problems need to be cognitively invented, interpreted and

articulated by the movement activist as emphasized by the framing paradigm. Bourdieu’s

concept of habitus shares significant similarities with framing and the concept of frame.

Frames are interpretative schemata that allow agents ‘to locate, perceive, identify and

label occurrences within their life space and the world at large’. In addition, they

‘function to organize experience and guide action’ (Snow et al., 1986, p. 464). Habitus can

be distinguished, first, as a perceptual and classifying structure and, second, as a generative

structure of practical action (Lizardo, 2004, p. 379). Habitus and framing are thus similar

concepts, originating from the concept of scheme in cognitive psychology (see Snow &

Benford, 1992, pp. 136–137; Lizardo, 2004).

Habitus and framing stress the constructive role of individuals. Snow and Benford

(1992, p. 136), for instance, understand agents as being creative, and thus they ‘do not

view social movements merely as carriers of extant ideas and meanings that stand in

isomorphic relationship to structural arrangements or unanticipated events’, but rather

they ‘see movement organizations and actors as actively engaged in the production and

maintenance of meaning’. The difference here, as Bourdieu (1996a, pp. 1–2) points out, is

that the construction process ‘can only be meaningful if it also sets itself the task of

grasping the social genesis of the cognitive structures that agents implement in them’.

Thus, ‘habitus structures new experiences in accordance with the structures produced by

past experiences’, meaning that early ‘experiences have a particular weight’ (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992a, p. 60). Although framing touches on the importance of past experiences

in constructing frames, in practice, its interests are in interpreting process of specific

events and conditions in order to mobilize adherents (see Snow, 2007, p. 384). This means

that little attention is paid to the question of the social conditions of the possibility of

272 H.-M. Husu

framing. Here again, Bourdieu draws attention to how the social space, capital and habitus

positions are interrelated. Bourdieu does not deny emancipation, but suggests that this type

of self-work is ‘determined in part by the original structures of the habitus in question, in

part by the objective conditions under which the awakening of self-consciousness takes

place’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 133).

Thus, compared to framing, habitus takes better into account the competence of

individuals and groups to understand the characteristics and different dimensions of

social problems. Social agents occupy ‘different positions in the field of class relations’;

they possess certain types of political competence characterized by ‘a greater or lesser

capacity to recognize a political question as political and to treat it as such by

responding to it politically’ (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 399). The emergence of identity-

motivated movements presupposes the transition from the practical knowledge of the

social world to the abstract and theoretical understanding. Agents must understand the

nature of the everyday world as being arbitrary and open to change. They must also

understand the normative character of everyday life, which means that they perceive

and criticize earlier taken-for-granted dimensions such as white, heterosexual, male

privilege and normativity. The capacity to reflect is ‘an acquired skill’ (Crossley, 2003,

p. 48) and also dependent on special training through which individuals achieve the

specific types of knowledge (theoretical, conceptual, statistical, etc.) and general skills

(argumentation, rhetoric and so on) required (Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 176).8 Bourdieu

(1986, p. 399) also relates political competence to the sense of being competent to

participate, ‘that is, socially recognized as entitled to deal with political affairs, to

express an opinion about them or even modify their course’. In other words, it is not

irrelevant that, due to their relatively privileged backgrounds, new social movement

activists and followers are endowed with specific cultural competence (see also

Crossley, 2002, pp. 173–177).

Symbolic Struggle over Legitimate Valuation of Identity

Goldberg (2003) combines resource mobilization with a collective identity approach

through Bourdieu’s idea of classificatory struggle, illustrating how struggles over

collective identity (between the Workers Alliance and its opponents, and within the

Workers Alliance in the United States from 1935 to 1941) have real social effects on the

mobilization of resources. However, while Goldberg’s focus is on the specific effects and

consequences of these struggles, the specific preconditions for effective symbolic struggle

also need to be taken into account. The idea of symbolic struggle in terms of identity

movements raises two questions: first, what is at stake in the symbolic struggle? Second,

what are the specific capitals that are central to the identity movements in the struggle?

What is at stake in the symbolic struggle is the legitimate valuation of specific

identities (who has the right to marry, for example) and the power to determine the

specific rules of the game, i.e. what is the most legitimate way of perceiving and

understanding identity-related issues in general. The former refers to struggles for

recognition and the status of marginalized groups. In this sense, movements can be

related to status politics, which ‘is an effort to control the status of a group by acts which

function to raise, lower, or maintain the status of the acting group vis-a-vis others’

(Gusfield, 1986, p. 19). This can further be viewed ‘as rational political action to


influence the allocation and distribution of honor or prestige’ (Goldberg, 2003, p. 736).

Status is linked to other types of benefits such as material advantage (see Goldberg,

2003, p. 736), but in terms of identity movements, it may also be related to opportunities

for self-expression and formal rights. The latter (the power to impose the legitimate

categories for identity construction), on the other hand, is related to a symbolic struggle

in which the question of how identity should be defined is at stake. For instance, is

identity understood as essential (natural and emerging from the permanent ways of being

and behaviour), or as something that is constructed and negotiated through power

struggles, and thus, flexible and open to change? The understanding of identity as a

social construction rather than a given category may well be the most fundamental effect

of the emergence of identity movements and identity politics.

Because of the lack of formal political power, identity movements’ power to

influence the social world lies in their capacity to transform categories of perception

and appreciation by providing alternative ways of perceiving and understanding things

and constructing new meanings (see Bourdieu, 1989, pp. 20–21). However, it can be

suggested that the extent to which this is possible is dependent on their possession of

capital. As agents possess different amounts and structures of capital, they have

‘various degrees of strength and therefore diverse probabilities’ in a field (Bourdieu &

Wacquant, 1992, p. 102). Capital (economic, cultural, social and symbolic) is viewed

‘both as a weapon and as a stake of struggle’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 98).

This draws attention to the species of capital that are central to identity movements.

First, economic capital is important not only because material resources affect

mobilization, as suggested by resource mobilization theory, but also because economic

capital creates distance from material necessities, which may shift the interest to symbolic

aspects and status (Bourdieu, 1986). Highly resourced individuals and groups are less

ready to accept low status in terms of stigmatized characteristics. In addition, cultural

capital related to the idea of competence facilitates the legitimacy of the position-takings

of movements.

The advantage of Bourdieu’s work that is absent in earlier approaches is that economic

and cultural capital function as symbolic power and symbolic capital in symbolic

struggles, and are regarded as legitimate competence and authority. Symbolic capital is the

credit, belief or recognition of the value of a person or an object (Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 192).

It can affect the ‘capacity to impose meanings as legitimate’ (Swartz, 2008, p. 46).

Any form of performance or discourse that efficiently imposes the legitimate vision must

be based on the possession of symbolic capital (which is nothing other than economic and

cultural capital when misrecognized as such) (Bourdieu, 1989, pp. 21, 23). It is ‘the power

granted to those who have obtained sufficient recognition to be in a position to impose

recognition’ (1989, p. 23).

In the case of identity movements, symbolic capital is based on the possession of

economic and cultural capital, which draws attention to the class position and middle-

class status of the members. As ‘each property (a pattern of speech, a way of dressing, a

bodily hexis [ . . . and other indications of middle-class status]) is perceived in its relation

to other properties’ (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 113), class status can be mobilized to promote

the legitimacy of those characteristics that are related to marginalization. If so, this

suggests that the valuation of different marginalized identities (in terms of gender,

sexuality and ethnicity) may vary according to the possession of capital (material and

symbolic).9

274 H.-M. Husu

Conclusion

This article constructs a Bourdieusian theoretical framework aimed at providing a coherent

approach to consider certain aspects of different movement theories, such as political process

theory, resource mobilization theory and framing, in terms of identity movements. The field,

capital and habitus toolkit stresses the interconnectedness of the existing opportunities of

fields, how they are taken advantage of, how interests are driven, how successful are the

strategies of the movements, what types of cognitive capacities agents have, and how they

interpret and construct meanings. Bourdieu explains the importance of class and the

competence of social agents in identity-motivated mobilization. Class position tends to

determine how a movement’s interests can be pursued, the types of strategies that are

available and how successful they will be in the fields to which the movement aims to appeal.

More specifically, the article suggests that the concept of fields takes into account the

existence of many other social spaces (economic, journalistic and so on) that may be

equally as important to social movements as the political field. With regard to openings

and opportunities in a given field, the Bourdieusian framework explains how these are

related to the position agents occupy in the field based on their possession of capital,

habitus and trajectories. Position-taking (stances, argumentation and so on) should also be

understood in terms of field, capital and habitus concepts. This perspective is a relevant

addition to the identity movement research because it illustrates that position-takings

(i.e. presentations of the self and representations of identity movements) should not be

explained in terms of self-presentations and representations itself, but of configurations of

objective relations and habitus. The cultural competence, which arises from the possession

of capital and habitus, enables specific understanding of social problems. To be able to

make visible and change identity-related social problems and to take advantage of the

possibilities that exist in fields, agents need not only to be qualified and able to carry out

certain types of position-taking, but also to have legitimacy based on the possession of

capital and habitus that indicates their class position in the society.

It can be argued that, to a certain extent, capital can be converted to symbolic capital, thus

making claims for recognition in symbolic struggles more effective and credible when the

agents are middle-classed. A high amount of capital can facilitate the acceptance of an identity

movement’s position-takings. It can give credence to its recognition claims and more

effectively legitimate its marginalized identity. This is not to argue that highly resourced

marginalized individuals and groups do not suffer from inequality, nor to prioritize that class

relations are above gender, ‘race’ or sexual inequality. Rather, it is claimed that when it comes

to mobilization, class position is central in promoting recognition and equal rights.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation and Sovako (the Finnish Doctoral Program of Social

Sciences) for funding. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.

Notes

1. For instance, McAdam (1999) links the historical processes behind the origins of the civil rights movement

between the years 1876 and 1954 (the decline in cotton farming in the South, the increased resources of

African Americans and mass migration to northern cities from the rural South) to shifts in political structures

facilitating opportunities for successful insurgent action.


2. It is easier to mention the role of agents in grievance interpretation than to explain the different aspects of

agency (see Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999). McAdam (1999, p. 51) argues that ‘[b]efore collective protest can

get under way, people must collectively define their situations as unjust and subject to change through group

action’. In addition, he suggests that ‘[m]ediating between opportunity and action are people and the subjective

meanings they attach to their situation’.

3. Conceptualizing the concept of field with respect to gender, ‘race’ or sexual orientation can be problematic, as

noted by many gender theorists (Moi, 1991; Adkins, 2004). Difficulties may follow from a tendency to conflate

gender, ‘race’, sexuality understood as (doxic) practice with gender, ‘race’, and sexuality understood as

symbolic struggle. Identity movements call for the recognition of a certain property, such as gender, ‘race’ and

sexual orientation; thus, the meanings, values, ideas and ideals that people attach to these properties become a

target of symbolic struggle reflecting the interest of different groups. In this sense, gender, for example, can be

understood as constituting a field. Any agents (individuals, organizations or institutions) that focus interest on

the field are part of the field. If gender is understood as (doxic) practice and related to the field, then the

question is how gendered dispositions affect practice in a field (is it related to the lack of practical mastery in

male-dominated fields?).

4. The state and institutions (as official authorities) can claim monopoly of the legitimate use of symbolic

violence and guarantee certain states of affairs by imposing on ‘someone what his [sic] identity is, but in a way

that both expresses it to him and imposes it on him by expressing it in front of everyone’ (Bourdieu, 1992b,

p. 121, 1996a, p. 376). This implies the importance of the state as the central target of identity movements

(e.g. with respect to the issue of same-sex marriages).

5. According to the concept of symbolic violence, the categories of perception and appreciation that marginalized

groups use to understand and evaluate the social world, dominants, themselves, etc., are constructed from the

perspective of the dominant (male, white, heterosexual). What follows is that these groups marginalize and

negatively value themselves, which can result in feelings of inferiority, shame and extreme practices such as

skin bleaching. In this sense, Bourdieu’s power-related concepts resonate with identity movements and the

phrase ‘personal is political’, as suggested by Walter (1990). In general, Bourdieu believes that stigmatized

identity (gender, ‘race’, ethnicity and sexual orientation) is related to the lack of symbolic capital

(resulting from status subordination) (see Bourdieu, 2001). Although Bourdieu (1986, p. 107) states that

economic and social conditions give form and value to the properties of gender, age and place of residence, he

also remarks that the secondary properties (such as gender and ‘race’) often provide the basis for the social

value, i.e. prestige or discredit, of specific capital (such as income and education). Thus, the lack of traits related

to ‘proper’ gender or social or ethnic origin leads to exclusion and marginalization (1986, pp. 102–103). The

interrelatedness of different aspects (gender, ‘race’, sexuality and class) in social inequality is scrutinized in the

growing literature on intersectionality (Browne & Misra, 2003; McCall, 2005; Lutz et al., 2011).

6. Nationalist, populist and reactive identity movements (typically possessing less cultural capital, in particular)

may form strategies that differ from those who are endowed with cultural competence, as is characteristic of

middle-class identity movements. They are likely to choose channels of discourse and representation that

create distance from arenas of argumentation and technical competence. For instance, a public march

emphasizing unity and masculine discipline as an illustration of a group’s power can be understood as

position-taking.

7. For a Bourdieusian analysis of strategies of distinction among environmentalists, read Horton (2003).

8. Individuals and groups those lack economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources are disadvantageously

equipped and dispositioned to impose and legitimate their vision in the world. Swartz (1997, p. 220) criticizes

Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power for underestimating ‘the capacity of nonspecialists to develop in certain

situations appropriate understanding of the true character of power relations’. For a Bourdieusian analysis of

how a disadvantaged group that significantly lacks capital understands and resists unequal material and

symbolic power relations, read Husu (2010).

9. It should be noted that symbolic capital functions most efficiently within the boundaries of the field effects.

In addition, movements (even those with a high volume of capital) are likely to have different opportunities in

different fields such as media, journalistic, political or judicial.

References

Adkins, L. (2004) Introduction: Feminism, Bourdieu and after, in: L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds) Feminism after

Bourdieu, pp. 3–18 (Oxford: Blackwell).

Bernstein, M. (1997) Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay

movement, American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), pp. 531–565.

276 H.-M. Husu

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline the Theory of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1985) The social space and the genesis of the group, Theory and Society, 14(6), pp. 723–744.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.)

(London: Routledge).

Bourdieu, P. (1989) Social space and symbolic power, Sociological Theory, 7(1), pp. 14–25.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) In Other Words (M. Adamson, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1992a) The Logic of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Blackwell).

Bourdieu, P. (1992b) Language and Symbolic Power (new ed.) (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.)

(Cambridge: Blackwell).

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1996a) State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (L. C. Clough, Trans.) (Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1996b) The Rules of Art (S. Emanuel, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Blackwell).

Bourdieu, P. (2001) Masculine Domination (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. (2005) The political field, the social science field and the journalistic field, in: R. Benson (Ed.)

Bourdieu and Journalistic Field (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflective Sociology (Oxford: Polity Press).

Bloemraad, I. (2001) Outsiders and insiders: Collective identity and collective action in the Quebec independence

movement, 1995, The Politics of Social Inequality, 9, pp. 271–305.

Blumer, H. (1951) The field of collective behaviour, in: A. M. Lee (Ed.) Principles of Sociology, pp. 67–121

(New York: Barnes & Nobles).

Browne, I. & Misra, J. (2003) The intersection of gender and race in the labor market, Annual Review of

Sociology, 29, pp. 487–513.

Cohen, J. L. (1985) Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements,

Social Research, 52(4), pp. 663–716.

Crossley, N. (1999a) Fish, field, habitus and madness: On the first wave mental health users in Britain,

British Journal of Sociology, 50(4), pp. 647–670.

Crossley, N. (1999b) Working utopias and social movements: An investigation using case study materials from

radical mental health movements in Britain, Sociology, 33(4), pp. 809–830.

Crossley, N. (2002) Making Sense of Social Movements (Buckingham: Open University Press).

Crossley, N. (2003) From reproduction to transformation: Social movement fields and radical habitus,

Theory, Culture and Society, 20, pp. 43–68.

Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (2006) Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell).

Diani, M. (1997) Social movements and social capital: A network perspective on movement outcome,

Mobilization, 2(2), pp. 129–147.

Eder, K. (1993) The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Communities

(London: Sage).

Edwards, B. & McCarthy, J. D. (2007) Resources and social movement mobilization, in: D. A. Snow,

S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi (Eds) Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 116–153

(Oxford: Blackwell).

Eisinger, P. (1973) The conditions of protest behaviour in American cities, American Political Science Review,

67, pp. 11–28.

Emirbayer, M. & Goldberg, C. (2005) Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and collective emotions in contentious politics,

Theory and Society, 32, pp. 469–518.

Emirbayer, M. & Johnson, V. (2008) Bourdieu and organizational analysis, Theory and Society, 37, pp. 1–44.

Erickson Nepstad, S. & Bob, C. (2006) When do leaders matter? Hypothesis on leadership dynamics in social

movements, Mobilization, 11(1), pp. 1–22.

Fligstein, N. (2001) Social skills and the theory of fields, Sociological Theory, 19, pp. 105–125.

Gamson, W. A. (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press).

Gamson, W. A., Fireman, B. & Rytina, S. (1982) Encounters with Unjust Authority (Homewood IL:

Dorsey Press).

Gamson, W. A. & Meyer, D. A. (1996) Framing political opportunity, in: D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy &

M. N. Zald (Eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing

Structure, and Cultural Framings, pp. 275–290 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).


Goldberg, C. A. (2003) Haunted by the specter of communism: Collective identity and resource mobilization in

the demise of workers alliance of America, Theory and Society, 5–6, pp. 725–773.

Goldthorphe, J. (1982) On the service class: Its formation and future, in: A. Giddens & G. Mackenzie (Eds)

Social Class and the Division of Labour: Essays in Honour of Ilya Neustadt, pp. 162–185

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J. M. (2003) Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning and Emotion

(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

Gouldner, A. W. (1979) The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (London: Macmillan).

Gusfield, J. (1986) Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement, 2nd ed.

(Baltimore, MD: University of Illinois Press).

Haluza-DeLay, R. (2008) A theory of practice for social movements: Environmentalism and ecological habitus,

Mobilization, 13(2), pp. 205–218.

Horton, D. (2003) Green distinctions: The performance of identity among environmental activist,

in: B. Szerszynski, W. Heim & C. Waterton (Eds) Nature Performed: Environment, Culture and

Performance, pp. 63–78 (Oxford: Blackwell).

Husu, H. M. (2010) The Nation of Islam’s efforts to raise black consciousness in 1950s and 1960s USA:

An application of Bourdieu’s symbolic domination and doxa, International Journal of Contemporary

Sociology, 47(2), pp. 325–347.

Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Population

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Jasper, J. M. (1997) The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Jenkins, R. (1983) Resource mobilization theory and study of social movements, Annual Review of Sociology,

9, pp. 527–553.

Johnson, R. (1993) The editor’s introduction, in: P. Bourdieu (Ed.) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on

Art and Literature, pp. 1–25 (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (1999) Ethnic and civic conceptions of nationhood and the differential success of the

extreme right in Germany and Italy, in: M. Diani, D. McAdam & C. Tilly (Eds) How Social Movements

Matter, pp. 225–252 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).

Lincoln, E. C. (1994) The Black Muslims in America, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans) (Original

work published 1961).

Lipsky, M. (1968) Protest as a political resource, American Political Science Review, 62, pp. 1114–1158.

Lizardo, O. (2004) The cognitive origins of Bourdieu’s habitus, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,

34(4), pp. 375–401.

Lutz, H., Herrera Vivar, M. T. & Supik, L. (2011) Framing Intersectionality: Debates of Multi-faceted Concept in

Gender-Studies (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Martin, J. L. (2003) What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), pp. 1–49.

McAdam, D. (1999) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930–1970, 2nd ed.

(Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press) (Original work published 1982).

McCall, L. (2005) The complexity of intersectionality, Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3),

pp. 1771–1800.

McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (1977) The resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory,

American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 1212–1241.

Moi, T. (1991) Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture, New Literate

History, 22(4), pp. 1017–1049.

Morris, A. D. (1984) Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Free Press).

Oberschall, A. (1973) Social Conflict and Social Movements (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Offe, C. (1985) New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics, Social Research,

52(4), pp. 817–868.

Ogbar, J. O. G. (2004) Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity (Baltimore, MD:

John Hopkins University Press).

Rootes, C. (1995) A new class? The higher educated and the new politics, in: L. Maheu (Ed.) Social Movements

and Social Classes, pp. 220–313 (London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Smelser, N. (1962) Theory of Collective Behaviour (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Snow, D. A. (2007) Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields, in: D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi

(Eds) Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 380–412 (Oxford: Blackwell).

278 H.-M. Husu

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K. & Benford, R. D. (1986) Frame alignment processes,

micromobilization, and movement participation, American Sociological Review, 51, pp. 464–481.

Snow, D. A. & Benford, R. D. (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,

International Social Movement Research, 1, pp. 197–217.

Snow, D. A. & Benford, R. D. (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest, in: A. D. Morris & C. M. Muller (Eds)

Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, pp. 133–155 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Swartz, D. A. (1997) Culture and Power: Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press).

Swartz, D. (2008) Bringing Bourdieu’s master concepts into organizational analysis, Theory and Society,

37, pp. 45–52.

Tarrow, S. (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).

Tilly, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Tilly, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution (Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley).

Tilly, C. (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758–1834 (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University

Press).

Tilly, C., Tilly, L. & Tilly, R. (1975) The Rebellious Century, 1930–1930 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press).

Tugal, C. (2009) Transforming everyday life: Islamism and social movement theory, Theory and Society,

3, pp. 423–458.

Turner, R. & Killian, L. (1987) Collective Behaviour, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Walter, L. (1990) The embodiments of ugliness and the logic of love, Feminist Review, 36, pp. 103–126.

Woodward, K. (1997) Concepts of identity and difference, in: K. Woodward (Ed.) Identity and Difference,

pp. 7–50 (London: Sage).


Copyright of Social Movement Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Documents

Bourdieu and Social Movements